About this Show

Today in Washington

News/Business. News.

NETWORK

DURATION
01:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 100 (651 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 9, Bskyb 5, Scotland 4, Rupert Murdoch 4, Murdoch 4, Britain 3, John Yates 3, Andy Coulson 2, Duval Administration 2, Paul Stephenson 2, Dowler 2, Mr. Colson 2, Tony Blair 2, Frank 2, Eric Crenshaw 1, Stephen Timms 1, Thomas Jefferson 1, Calvin Coolidge 1, Mr. Bachmann 1, Jane Blair 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Today in Washington    News/Business. News.  

    July 13, 2011
    7:30 - 8:59am EDT  

7:30am
interest. we must be helpful and constructive with the work that needs to be done. >> last week i approached regarding the fee and debt management to advise their client to takeout a remortgage for 50,000 pounds. the company paid 11,000 pounds taking the rest of his money. i have many other examples like this and self-regulation is simply not working with this industry. will the prime minister look urgently at speculation and provide the oft with the resort to take enforcement actions so that vulnerable people are not continuing to be ripped off? >> well, i know that the honorable lady has not just constituency, but managed the citizens advise center herself. she has huge experience of seeing people coming in with debt problems. i would say the cab is probably the finest organization in the country for helping people with debt. yes, i will certainly look at the suggestion that she makes
7:31am
about whether or not the sector can be better regulated, what we can do to help support citizens advise bureau at what is a difficult time and also looking at the issue of credit unions and how to lead to their expansion. >> speaker, the whole house shares the outrage expressed this week about publication of private medical information related to his son. he also said that when he was prime minister, he tried to set up a judicial inquiry to phone hacking. can my right hand friend tell me what work he inherited? >> i do have every sympathy with my predecessor, particularly over the issue of the blacking of the details if that's happened. in public life, we are subject to extra scrutiny. but not against the law.
7:32am
that is part of the problem, you hold back from daling -- dealing with it because you want media support. the one that we set up will get the job done. >> mr. speaker, the 41st international children's games will come to the county at the start of august. 112 children will participate. will the prime minister congratulate for their fore state and hosting the game and will he send a representative of the government to the event? >> i certainly congratulate the two local authorities. there aren't too many conservative local authorities i can congratulate in scotland.
7:33am
i wish everyone who is going to take part the best of luck. >> speaker, would the prime minister confirm that all witnesses to all aspects of the promised inquiries will be required to give evidence under oath? >> as i explain, it's going to be one inquiry with two parts and led by one judge that will agree to the terms of reference set out the way it's going to work and be responsible for calling people under oath. >> order. statement the prime minister. >> with volition, i'd like to make a statement. in recent days, the whole country has been shocked by the revelations of the phone hacking scandal. what the country and house has to confront is an episode that is frankly disgracement. accusations of widespread law breaking by parts of the press allege corruption and a failure of political system over many,
7:34am
many years to tackle the problem that has been getting worse. we must, i think, at all times, keep front and center the real victims of this. relatives of those who died at the hands of terrorism, war heros, murder victims, people who have already suffered in a way that we can barely imagine. they have been made to suffer all over again. mr. speaker, i believe we all want the same thing. we want press, police, and politicians that serve the public. last night, the deputy prime minister and i met with the leader of the opposition. i also met with the chairs of the culture, media, sport, and justice select committee to discuss the best way forward. following the consultations, i want to set out how we intend to proceed, first on the public inquiry, and the takeover of skyb, and before that, let me
7:35am
update the house on the current investigation into phone hacking. i met last night. he assured me the investigation is fully resourced, one the largest under way in the country, and it's being carried out by a completely different team than the one that carried out the original investigation. it's being led by sue acres who i believe impressed the select committee yesterday. her team is locking through 8,000 pages, including 4,000 mobile and 5,000 landline phone numbers. they will contact every single person named. they have so far made eight arrests and under taken interviews. let me turn to the action the government is taking. last week i set out the intention to set out a public
7:36am
inquiry into phone hacking in the british press. we have looked carefully at the nature of this inquiry should be. we want it to be one as robust as possible. one to get to the truth fastest and also get to work the quickest. one vitally that commands the full confidence of the public. clearly will be two pieces of work that have to be done here. first, we need a full investigation into wrongdoing in the press and police, including the failure of the first police investigation. second, we need a review of the regulation of the press. we would like to get on with both of the elements as quickly as possible, while being mindful of the ongoing criminal investigations. after listening carefully, we've decided the best way to proceed is with one inquiry, but in two parts. i can tell the house that the inquiry will be led by one the most senior judges in the country, lord justice leverson, he report to be to the secretary and secretary of sport. it will be published under the 2005 inquiry act, which means it
7:37am
will have the power to summon newspapers, reporters, and politicians of all parties to give evidence under oath and in public. proprietors included in the list. lord assisted by panel of senior independent figures with relative expertise in media, broadcasting, regulation and government will require into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, the relationship with the police, the failure of the current system of regulation, the contacts made, and discussions had between national newspapers and politicians. why previous warnings about press misconduct were not heeded, and the issue of cross media ownership. he will make recommendations for a new more effective way of regulating the press. one that supports the freedom, and independence from government, but which also demands the highest ethical and professional standards. he will also make
7:38am
recommendations about the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press. this part of the inquiry we hope will report within 12 months. the second part of the inquiry will examine the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the news of the world and other newspapers and the way in which management failures may have allowed this to happen. this part of the inquiry will also look into the original police investigation and the issue of corrupt payments to police officers. and it will consider the implications for the relationships between newspapers and the police. mr. speaker, lord justice has agreed to the draft terms of reference. i'm placing them today in the library and we will send them to the duval administration. nobody should doubt we intend to get to the bottom of the truth and learn for the future. next, to take over bskyb. we are hearing allegations. allegations they were in the pay
7:39am
of the news of the world and handed over the contact details for the royal family for profit. the former prime minister gordon brown had his assistances flagged. as the alleged nature of the malpractice and the scope of the newspaper involved widens, serious questions must be asked about news corporations proposed to take over of bskyb. added to this, news according has withdrawn the undertaking in view of the reference to the competition. that why on monday, my right honorable friend, the secretary of state for culture, media, and support referred their bid to the competition exhibition. the relevant independent authorities will have the time now to take an exhaustive look at the relative issues and come to a decision on whether the takeover should proceed. it will then be up to the secretary of state to make the final decision in the quasi judicial capacity. in every way, we are and must
7:40am
follow the law. let me repeat what i said on monday. in my view, the business should not be focused on mergers and takeovers, but on clearing up the mess and getting the house in order. that is what the house will be voting on tonight. let me also say this, the people involved, whether they were directly responsible for wrongdoing, whether they sanctioned it, covered it up, however high or low they go, they must not only be brought to justice, they must also have no future role in running a media company in our country. mr. speaker, now let me turn to the issue of ethics in the police and the relationship with press. of course, it's important that there's a good relationship between the media and police. police often uses newspaper and other media to hunt down unwanted criminals. however, allegations have been made some corrupt police officers may have taken payments from newspaper. and there are wider concerns that the relationship between the police and the press can
7:41am
also be too close. mr. president, when i spoke to sir paul stephenson yesterday, he made clear he's as determined as i am that all aspects of the police relationship with the media should be on approach. in the relation to the payment to police police officers, they referred the case to the police complaint commission. since then, the ipcc has been identifying who was given payments. once they are identified, the commission said they will move to a full independent investigation on all of the available expertise so that the public is reassured. my right honorable friend, home secretary, has been assured by the commission they have the power and resources needed to see this through. they will go wherever the evidence leads them and investigation any wrongdoing. the home secretary has commissioned a report from the
7:42am
ipcc on their experience of investigating corruption in the police service and any lessons can be learned. the initial findings will be delivered by the end of the summer. i can also tell the house, in addition to the work on the judicial inquiry on the relationship between the police and press, sir paul stephenson is looking to invite a senior public figure to advise him on the ethics that should under pin the relationship for his own relationship with the metropolitan police. this would ensure maximum transparency and how the relationships work. as we discussed a few moments ago, if we are calling from greater transparency from the police, i think it's only right we provide it in government. afterall, one the reasons we got into the situation, over the decades, politicians and the press have spent time courting support, not confronting the problems. i will be reporting to require
7:43am
all ministers to make public the meetings, regardless of the nature of the meeting. permanent secretaries and special advisors also required to record the meeting. the information should be published cordially. it will be one the most transparent in the world. i will discussing adopting this on a cross party basis. [cheering] >> mr. speaker, after the statement, i will be meeting the family of milli dowler. we can't imagine what they went through. i know they like every other person in the country want the politicians to bring the ugly chapter to a close and ensure that nothing like it can happen again. it is in that spirit that i commend to the statement to the house. >> ed milliband. >> mr. speaker, can i start by
7:44am
thanking the prime minister on his statement of the meeting last night. the revelations in the last week have shocked the country. those of us that represent them, to provide not just an echo for the leadership necessary to start putting things right. that is why in the interest of the whole house and the country that we move forward swiftly, comprehensively, and whenever possible, on an agreed bases. let me ask him first about the timing, nature, and scope of the inquiry. i welcome the establishment of the inquiry. can you confirm it will be staff, up and running before the recess? can he also confirm before the moment a judge is appointmented, it will be an offense for anyone to destroy documents and tell us what steps he will be taking to preserve documents which might be relevant? turning to how the inquiry will operate, we welcome a number of aspects for the announcement, on
7:45am
the way we've been calling for. this is right that there is a single judge inquiry, and it must be judge led to get to the bottom of what happened and when. set up under the inquiries act of 2005 and will have the power to compel witnesses and can we explain how he envisioned the judge and panel operating together? turning to the scope, the prime minister set out a number of areas that he envisioned being covered in the press conference last friday and he's gone further today. i think it is right that the government has now decided to follow our advise and the clear views -- and the clear views of the campaign and the dowler family in opting for a far broader inquiry. does the prime minister agree with me it is important of the home affairs select committee made clear that questions about the relationship between media and the police run far wider than the first investigation. we must take the steps that are
7:46am
necessary to restore the public faith in the police's ability to hold all of those who have broken the law to account. similarly, it can only be right that the inquiry has been broadened to the relationship of the politicians and the press. on the specifics of that, the relations between the police and press, can they assure the house that the aspects will be judge led and those who appear will appear under oath as witnesses to the inquire re? if that is the case, i will welcome it. alongside the important questions of behavior in britain's newsroom, the police, and the relationship between the politicians and press, there are a number of additional issues that need consideration. on the issue of media regulations, does he agree with me our instincts should continue to be for self-regulation? does he further agree that it needs to be prove that self-regulation can be made to work? and can he comment on the work going on privacy issues and
7:47am
whether he sees that as part of the investigation? can i welcome the decision to make cross media ownership part of the inquiry, does he agree with me more abuses of power are more likely to happen when there are high concentrations of power? can the inquiry be legislated for in the governments forthcoming communications act? can i suggest to him it would be wise to bring forward the act in the current date of 2015 which is when i believe it is planned for. finally on the protototo -- prol about transparency, back to the last general election. he will publish all of the details -- all of the details of the meetings, and i will publish all
7:48am
of the details of the meetings i had as well. let me end by saying this, people of the families and the innocent victim of phone hacks deserve a full and comprehensive inquiry. we need us to get on the with the inquiry, to make it comprehensive, and get on with the truth. they have my commitment and the commitment of my party to make sure we will do everything to make sure that happening. >> i think the gentleman for the helpful meeting we had last night and the constructive attitude he's saying about trying to get the terms of reference right and get the inquiry under way in a format that's agreed. answering the questions as directly as i can. in regard of where it starts, it will start at once. they have to be consulted on, sent to the institutions, we have to draw up the names for the panel. we're not going to waste any time with that. we will get on with it. on the issue of destroying evidence, let me be clear, mr. speaker, once a criminal
7:49am
investigation is under way, it is a crime to destroy any evidence that could relate to that. everyone needs to bare that in mind. in terms of the inquiries act, yes, it will be established under the inquiries act. in terms of the relationship between the judge and panel, i think this is an important point, the panel who's members we haven't yet approached and appointed i think has to have a range of expertise covering things in some media specialty into newspaper so there's understanding of that. i think it's also got to have a wider range than that. those panel members will be assisted the judge in the work that he does. very welcome -- as i said last night to accept suggestions for names of people who could bring expertise to bare. the broadness of the inquiry, the point that he made, question, it is now a broad inquiry. that's right. we have to make sure we try to put a time on it. actually, i think we do need to see results. things like cross media
7:50am
ownership. it's right to look at it. you can spend forever looking at cross media ownership. we have to make sure it's not going on for years, not reaching a conclusion. the point about relationships, police, press, politician press, yes, everyone who the judge wants to call under oath can be called under oath. on the issue of media regulation, i prefer to call what i think we need to aim for independent regulation, rather than self-regulation. i think self-regulation has got quite a bad name now, because it did miss too many things. now i don't want to move to world of full statutory regulation. i worked in an industry that was statutory regulated, television. it works. i don't think it's right for the press. we'll have to be guided by what the inquiry finds. i think as parties looking at this, i hope we don't get into sort of bidding war of as i think he understands what i mean. short for independent regulation
7:51am
if we can. on the issue of privacy, yes, of course, this inquiry will look at it. there's also the good work that i know is going to be done by the select committees into privacy. maybe they can look at that work. in temples -- terms of legislation, we will do that as necessary. let's see what proposal we come up with. i'm consulting on the proposal to make much more transparent what ministers do, not just meeting, but social, i think we should go further in terms of meetings with journalist as well. that might be something that the police want to do. i'm happy to discuss how far he wants it to go back, whether into slightly make it transparent, but not yet stop at the election. let's have a good look at that. >> order. a very large number of colleagues wish to catch my eye. i appeal to ask a single short supplement question into the
7:52am
prime minister characteristically economic relies. mr. john whitingdale? >> may i very much welcome the statement of the prime minister. can i also thank him for consulting myself and my two fellow select committee chairman in terms of reference last night. while there is no doubt that we need a stronger system of regulation of the press in this country, will he bare in mind that it was not just newspaper that were responsible for the holy unacceptable, and often illegal activities. it was always newspapers who exposed them. and i hope he will agree that a free press is an absolutely fundamental corner stone of a free society. we mustn't do anything to jeopardize that. >> i think the honorable gentleman speaks good sense about this. we do want at the end of this to have not just a free press, but free and vigorous press that can make our lives miserable a lot of time.
7:53am
that's vital. i know there are those in the press covering all aspects of this. that will make them nervous of this. i will stress the importance of the panel in assisting the judge to make sure the changes that are proposed are based on evidence what matters and what works. i think this is important. >> ben bradshaw. >> define what is said, will he publish now all of the discussions that he and his secretaries have had with news corps representatives? just a week ago when i ask the prime minister why the government is not when labour recommended it the bskyb? he said i quote you'd look pretty for a day but useless for a week. does he regret that answer? >> the point i make is what has happened here is a massive fire storm of allegations that have gotten worse and worse. on both sides of the house, all of us started from the proposition that you have to keep separate the investigations
7:54am
that were taking place and the inquiry that's going on to bskyb. i believe we are getting this might. if the gentleman has played a role, i pay tribute to him. he was the culture secretary and knows about the issues. just as i will say well done for pushing, he also should be saying to himself, why did we miss this for so long? >> simon hughes. >> mr. speaker, may i thank the prime minister for his decisive announcement. and for him and the deputy prime minister -- [booing] >> and for the work he and the deputy prime minister have done to make sure that the concerns which colleagues on these benches can be expressing for 17 years and the inquiry which we have been seeking for two years has been accepted. can i ask a specific question on the inquiry? will it look into the information commissioner reports
7:55am
of 2006 and why his confirmation, 31 media titles, and 305 journalist were involved in illegal activities in relation to personal information were not the subject of many recommendation by the last government that continued in the relationship to accuse my friend, the business secretary, of being too critical of murdoch even as late as last december? >> to be fair to my honorable friend, the issue of information commissioners reports, particularly the two reports he mentioned, it really is a rebuke not just to the last government, frankly to the last opposition as well that we did not make more of those reports. they did include some very important detail about what was going wrong in terms of data handling, data theft, and the rest of it. why were they ignored? what are we going to do about it
7:56am
now? >> jack straw? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i commend the appointment of lord justice as the justice secretary will confirm is a man of the highest intelligence and integrity. and somebody that i think is extremely well equipped to take on the job. only a few of the future regulations of the press. may i urge the prime minister not to fall into the trap which i think someone in the press is setting to assert that any degree of statutory regulation is bound to lead to self-regulation. given the express newspapers have withdrawn from the press complaints commission as they did in january, will he have knowledge that there will be some measures which will have to be imposed by statutes, in order there's a strong assistance of self-regulation? >> i think the gentleman speaks wise words about this. there are ways of setting up a regulatory system that
7:57am
effectively independent, nonstatutory, not involved -- with the governments fingertips all over it that can do a good job and trusted job. you see that in the advertising. that is not for us, this is for inquiry. i think it's important that they look at this. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i welcome the prime minister statement in the terms of the public inquiry which he set out. can i ask if the public inquiry will consider the role that mobile phone companies have played in the scandal, and any future which they might have to their clients? >> as you say, it takes two. someone to blog and someone to give. it's going to a huge amount of evidence. they will need to make sure they have proper technical expertise to get to the bottom of this? >> can i also welcome the inquiry and thank the prime minister for consulting the home
7:58am
affairs select committee on terms of reference. he seems to have included our suggestions in what he said today. he's right, the committee was concerned by some of the evidence that we received yesterday. we were impressed we deputy commissioner sue acres. she is saying she's going through the list of 30 victims a month. she has about 12,000 names or telephones numbers to go through. if they require further resources if the prime minister able to give them the sources they need? >> i thank the honorable gentleman for his approach. many of the terms we have been able to put into reference and his thoughts for membership of the point. the point about sue acres. she has two going on. one into the phone hacking of what happened at news of the world and elsewhere. but also she has an inquiry into
7:59am
corruption. that part of the inquiry is reporting to the ipcc. they make take over some part, butt police must have operational independent. >> i think the prime minister is right to concentrate on why it's not just a takeover. isn't it the case that the that's few years, the public expect to behavior, bankers, mps, journalist, police have shown they are not capable of that trust. regulation plays a part. but all of those who have to have found the conscience and work out their future in the public trust. >> i think the lady makes a good point. there's no regulation system that can protect against all bad practice. you need a social and moral responsibility whether you are a banker, m, or journalist. i'm sure we can do better on the current system. on the evidence that's happened
8:00am
and warnings, it's clear that the commission isn't set up in the right way and hasn't work. >> bridget. >> i'm inquiring about whether it's appropriate for the servants go on to take a role in the international and leaving the metropolitan police took up a job with news international and also the director -- former director of prosecutions. will the inquiry be able to consider the appropriateness of this give it does damage to the public confidence? :
8:01am
many areas in the country. >> perhaps it would be worth explaining why we decided to have one inquiry rather than two. the original concept of two inquiries is the one that is going to be investigating wrongdoing wouldn't really be able to get underway until the criminal prosecution was finished and the second inquiry, would raise the way with conclusions and i think that wasn't going to work and these sustainable and i don't think it
8:02am
would have resulted in such a positive outcome as we are going to have. if you have a broad inquiry make sure it gets its priorities right within terms of reference but the judge will do that. >> chris brian. >> yesterday afternoon we heard the man in charge of counterterrorism is 99% surge in his phone was hacked and an hour later i am shown a kit which cost 1500 lbs. readily available on the internet which sets up an illegal mobile phone through which you can listen to any telephone conversation by anybody on a mobile phone within three miles. this is publicly available and illegal to use it. private investigators are using an all time. isn't it vital that the inquiry looks at the role of private investigators and the shocking fact that there is no regulation
8:03am
at all? >> the gentleman makes a good point. one point is you set out the terms of reference and we can refine them but in this end the judge is going to determine where to go on the basis of where the evidence leads and if they come to the conclusion this is an important point they can go down that track. >> david roughly? >> in 2003, cote leaders bought an investigation into the practice by journalists of making illegal payments to the police. would the prime minister agree with me that former labor ministers should be instituted by the inquiry to discover why they appeared to take no action at all at the time? >> my hon. friend makes a good point but we will try to get this right, we all have to put our hands up and say the last government should have done more to respond to the rich and
8:04am
thomas report but we also have to ask what wasn't the opposition press in them more to do so? we all have to ask questions on that basis and look through the reports and see what was the evidence and what more could have been done. we are never going to solve this if we do it on a party basis. we have to do it on across party basis. >> if these measures are carried out there and i think some good will come out of evil and it's an embarrassing position of being able to command all three for coming together to make sure this happens. so thank you. could i ask the prime minister would he allow lord levenson access to the intelligence service as well, at the murky end of the scandal there are allegations that road elements in the intelligence services are closely linked with these activities and we need to get to the bottom of that. >> as i say to the hon. gentleman the judge can take the inquiry in any direction the
8:05am
evidence leads and he like others is free to make in to this inquiry and back out conclusions from the evidence and that the inquiry to follow that. at the same time he brought an independent and of inquiry we want some early results. we want some early harvests and i am sure the inquiry will do that too. >> the judicial inquiry, focus upon the need for ordinary members of the public such as the read families of service personnel to be able to seek and achieve legitimate grievances for proper complaints made against the immediate and their agents when they are guilty of malpractice. >> my hon. friend makes a good point which is we must at all times keep the public and the victims of what has now emerged from -- as politicians we have
8:06am
all got strong views about this, about what has gone wrong and what might have happened to wallace and the rest of it. this mustn't become as some people said an element of revenge for expenses. this has to be about the public and the victims and politicians have to be very careful in wanting a good and robust system of self regulation but we have to be absolutely clear and strong, free, independent press able to uncover wrongdoing in this case. >> william gray. >> you see the prime minister acknowledges across party consensus is the essential in this. there's nothing in the minority party or do we just get the completion. can i ask the prime minister, will the inquiry extend to northern ireland and the rest of the region of the united kingdom? >> let me apologize. it wasn't possible in a time we had available. let me stress the the draft
8:07am
terms of reference. an end the judge has to be comfortable with them and agree. there are opportunities. if there are issues you want to bring up with the government and the judge i am sure we can get that done. >> daniel kosinski. >> some people find it difficult given the complexity and cost to suit newspapers when they have lied about -- i very much hope the prime minister can give me an insurance this inquiry will look on low levels of income can be supported to suit newspapers when they are lot about. >> one of the things the inquiry has to look that is how people get redressed from newspapers when they are wrong. this has been looked after many years. argue part of this has to be done through an effective regulatory system. if you sue a newspaper it has gone too far.
8:08am
we all have proper address through a regulatory system and confidence of the press and the public. that is the key. >> tell the house if you had any conversations about phone hacking at the time of mr. colson's resignation, not his appointment. and will be placed in the library a lot of meetings and protocols between him -- since mr. colson's regulation -- resignation? >> all the time during his employment when there were articles appearing and a storm of allegations, i had that conversation with him many times because i had employed him and accepted his assurances to give to many others. in an end the reason for his resignation, giving up on a second chance is he felt he could go on doing the job which he did well. no one denies he did it well because of the allegations. in terms of contract i said what i said about transparency and
8:09am
that is right. >> i met yesterday with representatives from hacked off campaigning and behalf of victims for full inquiry. they have a range of requirements with sufficient inquiry. has the prime minister met with them and does he consider his current proposal to meet their demands? >> i will be meeting with him this afternoon. i look carefully at the briefing notes they have put out and listened carefully to his former colleague avant harris on the radio this morning. we have in terms of reference reflect a lot of concerns and some of the language of but i am looking forward to what they have to say with draft terms of reference and if they can be improved we should improve them. >> before the inquiry is complete, international news corp. doesn't move the british public, or this afternoon -- is the prime minister prepared to bring forward a short film
8:10am
amending cross media ownership rules and addressing the absence of limits on u.k. broadcasters with companies and non eu national. free market in the united states for example. >> it is difficult to bring forward specific legislation for a specific company. we have to be a government under the law. the hon. gentleman shakes his head of the party opposite, the reason a u.s.-based company is able to purchase all over u.k. broadcast is because it is government have. >> the inquiry agreeing very much, mr. prime minister that our focus should be on the innocent victims in the country we heard about recently. he will be aware that there were concerns in the house, the hacking of telephoned impeded members of parliament in their work and interfered with freedom of expression that is one of the
8:11am
most deeply held aspect of our work. the status privilege committee did a report on this subject with prime minister just to ensure this is fed into the inquiry and full reconsidered. >> i will of course do that. one of the opportunities is to look at some reports were a lot of work has gone into them and they gather dust rather than be taken seriously as they should. >> everybody is aware of the reason why the murdoch has such tremendous power was because he had 40% of the print media, television stations, and wasn't because of his amazing personality. the politicians of all parties are in his pocket. he had the power through the newspapers. in answer to my hon. friend's question just now, he said he
8:12am
didn't want to strip murdoch or anybody else of those titles. will he include the terms of reference that -- say that nobody can have more than one title and nobody can have more than one television station. will he agree to that? without it, this cancer on the politics of murdoch will remain. >> the inquiry can go where it wants to go. follow the evidence where it needs. i am sure the judge will produce an inquiry that is under current law, what we have to do. we have to be a government of the law. i don't agree with him that you can't have responsible company owning a television license or radio licence and newspaper. i don't agree with that but we need rules -- that is why the media has not only competition policy and has to obey but rules about plurality so we make sure there's a decent share of waste
8:13am
in the media. he shakes his head but not enough was done to make that happen. >> to be arrested in secret, neither is it right that individual police officers should immediately contact their favorite journalist to let them know when someone has been arrested. will the prime minister look at a transparent and standard way of it being made public when someone is arrested so this can't happen in the future? >> the problem hon. friend identifies is correct. i am not sure i agree with his solution. it would seem to me much better would be to have the same transparency that we want to see between politicians in the media between police and media because in the end transparency about media contact would help to prevent a culture that has grown up in some parts. >> ellen goodman. >> the prime minister's statement was a bit complex but
8:14am
sounds like the decision on the takeover would be before the end of the judicial inquiry and police inquiry. is that right? and is that correct? surely it isn't right. >> the problem we have is that we have a set of rules and laws concerning competition policy, plurality, fitness and proper test laid down in the law that have to be carried out by the authorities and secretary of state. he has to obey the law. there are laws put in place largely by the previous government. the competition will look at this and take its time but cannot take forever in making its recommendation. then there will be decisions from the secretary of state. we can't do anything but obey the law. we are doing today and what the leader of the labor party and democrats and bar are all doing is making a clear statement about our opinion to say to this business you can't go on pursuing a merger when you ought
8:15am
to be dealing with the mess you having your own business and that is the best thing to do. >> already a criminal offense. if it isn't already a criminal offense, libya made a criminal offense? >> unlike my hon. friend i am not a lawyer. i believe it is a criminal offense because if you obtain information falsely that is breaking the law. this is another aspect i am sure the inquiry can look at. >> david winning. >> will the prime minister agree some of the evidence given to the house yesterday must have come as a shock and a surprise? for instance how can it be justified for the police -- the very people they are investigating? and the reason this inquiry is so necessary? >> i watched some of the evidence and that was striking. i think transparency -- let's be
8:16am
frank -- m. p.s of conover expenses and meetings and other things and i think time for the police to look at that too. transparency of the best answer. you are bound to have relationships between senior police leaders and media executives not least because the police have to explain what they are trying to do and have to have a relationship with the media. then people know what is going on. >> mr. speaker, can i welcome the prime minister's statement today? can i say it is good to see him on the front spot. can i remind him -- can i remind him -- suppose stevenson is looking to invite senior public figures to advise him on the ethics to underpin the relationship for his own force of the metropolitan police? can i suggest a water lead
8:17am
throughout the nation provides automatic to be applied given that they come out in the right way but can i ask him to take that sort of action to ensure other forces are involved in this process? >> of course. the problem of a relationship has become unhealthy between some police officers and some media organizations. i do think he met is our biggest force if it starts the process not only of transparency bottles of a culture change that is necessary will set a good example to others. >> brian davis. >> a lot of the information available to the prime minister on phone hacking. what techniques does he anticipate will be used to pressurize offcom to determine whether they're the right people to run these -- what action will he take to preempt or prevent any intimidation in that
8:18am
decision? >> what i say to the hon. gentleman is it is a matter for offcomm is right and we don't ask politicians to make those decisions about fitness that wouldn't be right. we ask the competition to look at this issue. i think there was also a separate issue which is you need to be able to allow them to make a fitness and proper in this test at the point of full acquisition which is a particular detail we need to look at in the future. >> mr. graham stuart. >> for the first time ever i agree with hon. members -- what is most disturbing and is murky about this situation is the relationship between politicians and the me and from the moment tony blair flew to australia in the 1990s relationship has meant leaders of major parties have felt it necessary to cozy up to media moguls. can we have a situation in the
8:19am
future where we don't have party leaders going to the party where they can keep them at arm's lab and the whole country can be assured of public interest of power in the land? >> the point i make is the relationship did get unhealthy. it was too close and too much that time was spent courting the media and not enough confronting the problem. we won't all become monks. you have to have a relationship where politicians can try to persuade media organizations they are trying to do the right thing. we have a duty to explain our policies and what we're doing for the country. democracy is government by explanation. you have to explain yourself to the media. this process will deliver a healthy relationship where we can do that explaining but also confront the problems at the same time. >> given what the prime minister said about the performance yesterday. was it wise for the secretary to
8:20am
describe john yates as doing a good job and the chair of the metropolitan police association bourse johnson to describe this song and dance? >> let me deal specifically with the issue of john yates because this is important. he does an extremely important job for the country in terms of counter-terrorism. i watched him at close hand in the job that he does. we have to have a situation where the police are operationally independent and if we put our trust in paul stevens and to run his team we must allow him to run his team. i ask the hon. gentleman to think of this. it would be quite dangerous if politicians were able to point out individual police officers particularly those who were leaving the investigation in other politicians so there are some dangers here. i think john yates is doing a good job at counter-terrorism. he got some questions to answer about what went wrong with the
8:21am
initial investigation and i hope he will welcome this inquiry that will get to the bottom of what went wrong. >> in the light of the pressure of this inquiry it seems likely that serving police officers will go on sick leave. will the prime minister guarantee under no circumstances will the taxpayer be asked to fund any pension of any police officer either serving or retired is bound to be corrupt which is the final insult. >> i will have to look at the deck of the hon. lady makes. it sounds sensible to obey the rules of the pension schemes and all the rest of it. peoples of not be rewarded in the way she says. >> you speak about the regulation. can i ask the inquiry to think about possible remedies specifically the remedies that are found to be on the floor but secondly more importantly, equal
8:22am
amount of time and space is given for printing of attraction and much is spent to vilify people. >> the honorable lady makes a good point. we worked unregulated industry in television where you could be fined if you got something wrong. it has the huge effect on the business but not for us to say what the rules should be. it is for the inquiry and it should be properly advised by experts who understand how the media works. >> may i congratulate the prime minister? the leader of the opposition and yourself. parliament at the half of this matter. there's a danger in all this. in an end we see scandal. most m ps of the highest integrity, working hard public servants. most journalists including those in news international are hard working of the highest integrity. would the prime minister just mention that fact? >> the hon. gentleman makes a
8:23am
good point. british press has a lot to be proud of in investigative journalism and uncovering the truth, providing information and holding the powerful to account. the point i would say for skeptics in the press who worry about this inquiry is we can't go on as we are. we need to stop this firestorm and protect what is good in the media to deal with abuse we clearly see in front of us. >> adrian bailey. >> earlier the prime minister's question, the prime minister alluded to alleged lying to select committees. given the fact misleading select committees and refusing to turn up as a witness for select committees is contempt of parliament but the last time criminal sanctions were invoked was in 1666. can the prime minister undertake to bring forward emergency
8:24am
legislation to make contempt of parliament a criminal offense at the earliest opportunity? >> i have to look closely at the issue the hon. gentleman raises. the leader of the house doesn't quite the back to 1666 but some weigh further towards it than i do. that will give him some satisfaction. >> the birds. >> a number of individuals and organizations with questions -- would the prime minister assure me that should there be dramatic development in coming week that he would not hesitate to add his voice to recall of this so they can be stated on the floor of the house? >> there's never a shortage of people calling for parliament to be recalled. it was a recent recess that happened even started -- i'd may not be the first out of the trap if i can put it that way.
8:25am
>> the prime minister's repeated emphasis on transparency and in that respect, is it useful, freedom of information legislation started to public and private bodies that operate fully in the public sphere and all the media one is. >> i am sure that is something the inquiry can look at. i don't share tony blair's regret on freedom of information. it has been a good thing. what we're looking at here is more transparency so people can see who is meeting or who is doing rather than have a process of discovery. what this government to bring is a range of areas, having an original transparency to reduce the need for expensive discovery. >> philip lee. >> i welcome the prime minister's plans on changing a meeting with members of the media. can i pressed him on the
8:26am
definition of media? in a world in which people increasingly -- they share their news, i would suggest those organizations and meetings with them should be in the public domain. >> you raise a good point. media and now encompasses a wide range of things. that is one of the reasons it is necessary to consult on this change to ministerial code because i want to do it in a way that is clear and works well. >> mr. speaker, an outraged public demands action and accepts leadership and the public interest. every state the prime minister has been slow to act. does he agree -- does he agree that rupert murdoch is not a fit and proper person and given that we now know that lord ashton warned him not to appoint an the
8:27am
polls and does he have any regrets appointing someone who was not a fit and proper person? >> the point i make in government is you're not just making speeches but you have to make decisions and get it right and make sure the terms are right and make sure the inquiry is right and find the judge and appoint a panel and work out how you will be transparent. you need to work out how to amend the ministerial code. it is not just saying things but doing things. of course it takes time to get the right. you have an enormous fire storm going on with major steps forward to make a difference but fitness and providence is a test. we mustn't get into a situation where the prime minister or leader of the opposition points a finger and make a particular point about a particular person. as for the other question i answered it in full. >> don foster. >> on that point would the prime minister agree if there are any
8:28am
legal restrictions preventing the regulators to judge now the fitness of news corp. as an organization, not the individuals to existing -- those regulations should be swept away immediately. >> we are looking at that specific issue. we ask the competition commission to look at it and we will hear what they have to say. >> in the cash for honors inquiry, judge all suspects to be innocent until they were proved to be labor. does he agree that the best trusted news in the country and the best investigative journalism comes from those broadcasters who are already under statutory duty to balance their views and instead of a hard solution wouldn't the ultimate solution would be to put the obligation of balanced political reporting to be spread
8:29am
to all media? >> i think that is a matter of inquiry. the reason you have a statutory regulation of the television is because you are dealing with a previously limited spectrum that was a privileged to own and the reason for not having statutory regulation of newspapers is in a free society should be free to set up a newspaper to distribute opinions and even if it is the morning star as someone said it is important to hold on to that. this is not a government nor an opposition that wants to leaped into statutory regulations. that is not the intention to prove we have now. ..
8:30am
>> can i ask the prime minister to meet quickly with the first minister of scotland so we can understand the state in scotland and what needs to be done to tackle it? >> i do have regular conversations with him. i think in this case, the best thing is to make sure the duval administration are happy with the terms of reference to work out how the inquiry is going to relate to the duval administration and any evidence can be put into the inquiry in the way i suggest. >> mr. speaker, even if private medical details are obtained without breaking the law, it doesn't mean they are right to publish, especially when it
8:31am
relates to a child. can the prime minister confirm the inquiry will consider and recommend what meaningful actions can be taken when they didn't act against the law, but standards and ethics. >> the lady makes a good point. we will look at that. what regulatory people you have, you still have to have people at the top of newspapers and media organization who take responsibility. who recognize it's not right to reveal someone is pregnant, for instance, when there's no certainly they'll keep the baby. these are important things about common sense and den sen si. whatever regulatory system we come up with, we need to keep all of that thought too. >> stephen timms. >> chief of staff from the guardian? >> i think i've answered the question in detail. the information wasn't passed on. the line share was included in a
8:32am
published article in the guardian about which i gave an extensive answer about an hour ago. >> i would like to ask a few more people, but i require brevity. mr. william cash. >> thank you, mr. speaker. could i see to the prime minister, he's referred to media executives and noted the fact the word media covers a wide range. to be fully comprehensive, does he agree there should be an extension to the terms of reference to sound media as well? because it is not impossible given the uncertainty and unexpected turn of events that it may involve that side of things as well? >> as i said, whatever terms of reference you agree with the judge, they are free to pursue the evidence. if it takes them to different places, they are free. i'm sure he'll look at what he says. >> mr. speaker, in the statement, the prime minister
8:33am
said that judge levinson and the panel will require into national newspapers and politicians. can i take it therefore he submitting to the the inquiry details of all meetings held between him and news international and including the names of the individuals who attended such meetings, even if one of them was the exchief of staff, andy coulson? >> i would be happy to go along and answer any questions about any contacts i've had with any media organization at any time, as long as i still had the memory of when it happened. i'm very happy to do that. >> is the prime minister aware that the first hearing yesterday was not a one off, but the conclusion of a nine-month inquiry on a cross party basis and it raised serious concerns not just about the role of the police, but the role of the cps in the original investigation? >> the honorable gentleman makes
8:34am
a good point. i do think one of the things that clearly the second part of the inquiry will look at which is the first police investigation and what went wrong and why it was insufficient, it has to look at the review and why it doesn't result in further actions. these are difficult questions. it's right an inquiry looks at them. >> has the prime minister satisfied himself that the proposed double borrowed inquiry will be proofed against the legal challenges as to the conduct and scope from various interests, and also has he anticipated the various cause, a few of them valid that made representations to the inquiry and ministers or former ministers, will they do so with the support and assistance of law officers? >> very good question. i found doing the job, there's almost nothing that is sha caned from legal inquiry in the work. we think we are doing in the right way under the inquiries
8:35am
act and all of the things that flow from that. perhaps i can look at detail of the questions he asked about the preparations of the ministers. >> would the prime minister confirm the police investigation includes payments made to connected parties which is relative of police officers, including such payments not made in cash, such as electronic transfers to show companies, vouchers or travelers check and in due course, it will also look at others who provide stories, such as paramedics, doctors, and governors who may have been subject to corrupt? >> well, this inquiry must follow the evidence wherever it leads. if it finds malpractice, it must investigate it. >> in recent days, it's become clear a number of the alleged times will be covered by the inquiry took place in scotland. the prime minister said earlier that it had regular discussions with the first minister. can i ask is the prime minister received the assurances from the
8:36am
scottish government that the inquiry will have the cop -- cooperation about the scottish government? >> we need to consult with duval, including the first minister, to seaway they have to say. >> can i congratulate the prime minister on the list and can i repeat the honorable member from west said? in the history of select committees not being able to compel people to attend. this needs to be looked at. there is a process. it's long winded. there there was any way of ensuring that people could brought to a select committee when they are asked to give evidence, if that could be looked at. >> there is a repeated call from the honorable member. i think it's an issue for the leader of the house to address, perhaps you can say something about it tomorrow at business questions. you want people to attend select committees. obviously, you have to try to
8:37am
fit and make sure you are not asking people to do things that inconvenient. if people give you the endless unaround, maybe there should be some way through that. >> just to be absolutely clear, the prime minister did say earlier that proprietors could be called. can he confirm that if those proprietors were to be foreign citizens, unlike with the select committee, they could be compelled and attend and give evidence? >> the gentleman raised a good issue. i don't see why the answer should be no. if you own media, you should be able to call under oath. >> prime minister agree will would be a mistake if at the end of the process we saw the death of good investigative journalist, for expenses, and would be wrong if we ended up in a process where that sort of scandal would not have come to light. >> i think he makes a good point. those people in the press who
8:38am
work hard, who are good investigative reporters, who don't break the law, find good stories, hold the powerful. i don't want them to watch today and think we're going to strangle the free press in the country. that's not what we should be doing. this is important that we all say that and this inquiry bears at heart and is in reference. >> the prime minister said destroying evidence would be a criminal defense. that's only the case once the terms of reference of the inquiries has been set. will -- why didn't he set up the inquiry last week where members on this side of the house asked him to and will he make sure the terms reference are set as soon as possible so that no further evidence is destroyed? >> i think the premise underlying is wrong. my understanding is where there's a police investigation, as there is with hacking, if you destroy evidence, you are breaking the law. that is happening right now. in terms of setting up the
8:39am
inquiry, the terms of reference are now in the library for him to see. he's got suggestions and ideas he can make them. i sent him to his right honorable friend this morning for comments from the neighbor party. we have incorporated those comments in full. >> mr. matthew hancock. >> speaker, can i push the prime minister a little bit more on the culture of journalism. as with the bankers crisis and mps expenses crisis, changing the culture and self-responsibility of the industry is important. what is he going to do to take a lead on that? >> well, i think he makes an important point. we should celebrate good journalism. we should celebrate social responsibility in journalism and in media organizations. and let me put on the record there are many media organization that do some brilliant things in our country to build up what i call the big society. we must not damn all media because of what is happening and has happened in some organization. you need a culture that is about
8:40am
getting to the truth, but no, not breaking the law. >> thank you, mr. speaker. given the point made earlier by the chair of the select committee, metropolitan police's small team will take many, many months to go through all of the names and phone numbers that they have to. can i press the prime minister to make sure they have enough police officers to do the job in good time? and bad. >> as i said in my statement, this is one the biggest police investigations currently ongoing in britain today. let me defense of the metropolitan police. next year is the olympics. the metropolitan police have to meet a huge number of objectives for the police authority to help set those. i do think they are putting adequate resources. it's one the biggest operations in britain today. >> mr. eric crenshaw? >> mr. speaker, can i for one congratulate the prime minister and the other party leaders on
8:41am
the scope. i want to follow a point by the honorable defendant as to why the police in terms of police heavy is just dealing with the metropolitan police when it seems to us a cultural tradition across all police forces to have the tight relationship with the favorite journalist and whether in the short term the secretary could talk to chief constables about starts their own procedures. >> the honorable gentleman makes a good point. first of all, the inquiry will look across and make recommendations across all police police police forces about the lessons that it learns. there's an opportunity for the mets to take leadership role. >> the prime minister said on several occasions to follow the evidence trail wherever it leads. if that includes to the proprietors of news international, which ever media groups, is it not the case we
8:42am
should be hardening the terms of evidence and is it the prime minister's view that rupert murdoch should be required to give evidence to the inquiry? >> the point of the inquiry, it must choose who it wants to speak to and call them under oath and make sure they answer questions accurately. clearly it's going to want to talk to editors, proprietors, and those who are responsible across the media. that's going to be the work that it does. >> mr. speaker, would my right, honorable friend agree with me we'll never be able to stop criminals intent on phone tapping. whatever we do, whatever steps we take, we've got to try to minimize the possibility? >> i mean that's right. you are never going to stop all law breaking through a regulatory system, just as you never stop all law breaking through a policing system. with the media, you have to have free and independent that does not feel the heavy hand of statutory. you need a change of law, but
8:43am
you also need a change of conscience. >> does the prime minister agree with me the general public will find it amazing that anyone suggestions self-regulation, isn't it the number one priority that we have regulation that's independent? >> i like the word independent rather than self. i think self sounds like newspapers regulating themselves rather than someone independent, not reliant on the government. that would be worrying. someone more independent who can take a strong view. >> mr. speaker, will the inquiry be able to take evidence from mr. lance who used to work and said in 2006 when he worked there, he sometimes felt like rupert murdoch was the 24th member of the cabinet? >> i'm sure that lance will be available. i have to say the book he wrote about the last government is one the most depressing things i've ever read. >> if the will of the evening is carried and news international
8:44am
were to withdraw the bid for bskyb what steps would they take to persuade murdoch to do the decent thing? >> as i've tried to explain, i think the government has a responsibility to act within the law. we have to deal with each merger, acquisition, and process. that's what my friend has to do. tonight they are going to express an opinion. that opinion will be heated. >> roughly, the prime minister sated -- stated and will tell the house whether they have been in contact to express the opinion about views international and whether they are trying to investigate the company for possible breaches? >> i haven't had any contact with any u.s. politicians about this issue. and, you know, i haven't had that contact. >> there are thousands of
8:45am
families thrown back to a involved one death. would the prime minister ensure to have conversations to start talking to editors of national newspapers about not rejudge stating stories, and provile them with help and guidance and information about notices so that their trauma can be reduced and not added to their grief? >> i think she makes a great point. it's not just something for the bbc, about trauma and being sensitive about the issue. >> does the prime minister agree that one the key weaknesses of the commission is that the public interest defense contained in the code has frankly been used and abused over the years? this is why it is so important
8:46am
that we have independent regulation and those who continue to cling to the idea of self-regulation will rot? >> i think my honorable friend who did an excellent job as my press secretary for many years before taking the sensible view that he belonged on these benches. there is a problem. the inquiry have to look at. which is you do want the press to take action in the national interest and to have that. but you've got to have a system where they are not breaking the law. it's an issue that has to be resolved. >> mistaken -- >> will the prime minister explain further the practical difference between self-regulation and independent regulation? >> i don't want to get into theological debate about this. i think the problem with the word self-regulation is implies the press has been effectively regulating themselves. what we are looking for, although this is for the judge and panel, is something more independent. not statutory with a heavy hand
8:47am
of the state, but independent and able to make sure that proper standards are followed. i gave some examples of how this works elsewhere. i think it can be done. >> i welcome the statement by the prime minister and the leadership that he has shown on this matter. with regard to the inquiries, can i ask him to clarify this? we have seen in recent months and recent years certain inquiries have held evidence behind closed doors. to ensure that all of the evidence has been caught is in public, so the public can see what's been done and what's been done to connect -- correct it? >> this is independent inquiry, led by judge taken under oath and in public. that's the point. if it was decided inquiring the deep national security issues, it might have to a different session. but it's a public inquiry. >> the prime minister says that he wants the cross party approach. when will he need with the leaders of the parties in the house? in 2006, the information
8:48am
commissioner reported that up to 3,000 breaches of privacy? >> that was one the wake up calls when they didn't wake up. in terms of taking the view, i can discuss that with my friend and see what the best way forward is. >> mr. david morris. >> can i ask the prime minister and the group feeling of this house that we could actually put the full vetting authorities of the government to the asis stance to the leader of the opposition so he can find out more about his director of communications? >> we all have to answer questions about the people that we employ and the activities they might have under taken. i'm sure the leader of the opposition will be doing just that. >> sheila gillmore.
8:49am
>> thank you. when they were urging the culture secretary to refer this to the commission, we were given to understand that the reference as it were referred would be very limited. on monday, the culture secretary indicated to this house that clearly terms of reference would be available. are the terms of reference that would be made apparently been sent already this week going to be made available to the house? >> well, i answered this question perhaps in the debate later. the point is the commission has been asked to look at plurality grants and the issue. we have to do them under the law. we can't invest new grounds, we can only use the legal instruments and test that is are there. >> mr. charles. >> mr. speaker, may i welcome the prime minister that sunlight is the best disinfectant. if we are going to sort it outcross party, sure it's not
8:50am
good enough just for government and special advisors, ministers and their special advisors as well in >> i think that's right. the point about the politicians and press and where it has gone wrong, because we have been courting support rather than confronting problems. i admit that as leader of the opposition, you want to get the newspapers to support you and trying to explain what you are doing for the country. that's not going to stop. we are not going to live in a monastery and never talk to journalists again. as wonder as it seems at the moment, we have to have a healthy relationship where we can have the meetings and discussions. at the same time, we confront what we have. that is what the commission is going to do. >> mr. speaker, i'm not a legal expert, i'm concerned about the suggestion there's a nondisclosure agreement between news international and glen at
8:51am
the mcclure. the man at the center of the hacking. the nondisclosure agreements must have taken place between news international and him around 2005 and 2006 at the time that andy coulson was at news of the world. i have a deep concern about who negotiated this and will the prime minister look into this personally and will it be part of the inquiry? >> it needs to be part. the point is the police inquiry. never mind the inquiry that is about to start. there's a police inquiry now into what went wrong of the news of the world. how much hacking, who was hacked? who knew? all of those questioned answered by the police. full on police inquiry, not the rather thin inquiry that happened before. >> in terms of transparency and in terms of meetings between politicians and media, can i ask my friends to go further than the leader of the opposition suggested not just back to the last election, but to the government and see what people
8:52am
on both sides of the house have been up to? >> i think we're going to look at the issue of transparency and how best to put it into the code and consider what is right and fair. i think the inquiry will be able to look at contacts over a period to try and see what went wrong in the relationship. >> mr. jim? >> thank you. will the meetings of the inquiry be open to the general public? in other words, will the general public know as well? >> this is a public inquiry, held in public. >> does the prime minister believe once a healthier relationship is established between politicians and the media, it will be easier for the government to adopt in relation to drunk community or immigration? >> that's a lovely idea. i hope -- no, i think that -- as i say, this is not going to mean no contact between politicians and the media. there are difficult issues. you mentioned a couple of them where we do need to try to
8:53am
explain and take people with us when we are taking difficult decisions. we cannot do that ourselves. we need a lively and questioning media to help us do that. perhaps this healthy relationship will make what he wants more possible. >> we listened very carefully to the prime ministers answers. i would like to ask the prime minister would he accept there's a difference between explaining government policy or indeed the opposition's position to the media and courting their support? and that it is that culture of courting the support of the media that needs to be tackled by not by the inquiry, but by the members of the house? >> i agree, there's nothing wrong with meeting with editors and trying to explain why your vision is the right one for the country. people expect you to do that. where it can go wrong is where politicians start doing things, perhaps influenced by the media companies that they wouldn't do. i remember standing from opposing the 42 day detension.
8:54am
which i don't think most of the people on the front bench believed it. i think they were doing it because of the pressure from the press. profoundly wrong. that's what we have to stop in the future. >> can i welcome the prime minister statement? does he agree with me that the press that's constituted is clearly not fit and that it would have been most helpful if the reform has been initiatived in 2007 if the phone hacking at that time failed? >> there are many people on the press complaints commission who have tried to make it work. i would argue it has made improvements in recent years from when it was originally established. when you look at what's happened and when you look at the trail of reports and problems in the rest of it, the pcp didn't do enough. therefore, reform is needed. that is one the starting points for the inquiry. >> does the prime minister address the inaction over the grave issues over a number of years? and if they ask now to succeed
8:55am
and maintain public support, they need to be above party politics and political opportunities should be shunned and ignored? >> i think he's right. because we do need to have an all party approach as far as possible. sometimes all party approaches can be become a conspiracy. we have to make sure that's not the case. i think the basis inquiry about the need to change the regulatory system, i think if we can push forward in that way there wouldn't be too much as it were regulatory arbitrage. which is a danger in this position. i propose to keep in close touch about the leader of the labour party. >> mr. speaker, i wonder if my friend agreed with the senior commentator in the twittersphere who says that people in glass houses should not throw stones? >> i long again learned my lesson about saying anything about the twittersphere for danger of getting the wrong
8:56am
thing in the wrong place. >> media regulation goes beyond simple law breaking. how can we be sure it can act in a timely passion on no wrongdoing without waiting for numerous criminal investigations and the prosecution to follow them and have concluded? >> the honorable gentleman makes a good point. the truth is the element of inquiry, which is, for instance, investigations into allegations of police corrupt or investigating into the hacking at the news of the world. that part of the inquiry, that has to wait for the police investigations to be carried out for prosecutions to be carried out, and indeed as i understand it for any appeals to be launched. that's one the reasons for having one inquiry with two parts, rather than two inquiries. because the one doing that part would have to take a long time before it got doing. >> i thank the prime minister and colleagues which enabled all 78 benches that wanted to contribute to do so. statement the secretary of state
8:57am
for defense, mr. secretary fox. >> the chairman of the culture, media, and sports committee announced yesterday he's asked news corporation chairman rupert murdoch, his son james, and rebecca -- rebekah brooks to testify. c-span will cover it if that happens. you can watch other events on phone hacking on our web site at c-span.org. >> this weekend on booktv on c-span2 on "afterwords." jane blair relives her experiences on the front lines in iraq. in railroaded, the impact of the transcontinental and in eisenhower 1956, david nichols look at the suez canal crisis,
8:58am
eisenhower faces a change. look for the complete booktv schedule at booktv.org and sign up for booktv alert, weekend schedules in your inbox. >> this is the great hall here at the library of congress. the largest library in the world. did you ever wonder if you were to read one book a day in the library how long it would take you? you'll find lots of answers in c-span's original documentary. the library of congress. airing this monday night. we'll tour the iconic jefferson building, including the great hall and the reading room. we'll show treasures, sound in the rare books, and special collection, including the original thomas jefferson library, and presidential papers from george washington to calvin coolidge, and learn how the library is using technology to discover hidden secrets in the collection and preserve it's holdings for future generations. join us for the library of congress. this monday night at 8 eastern
8:59am
and pacific on c-span. oh, and to read every book in the library, one per day, it would take over 60,000 years. >> on monday, house financial services committee ranking member barney frank defended the reasonable regulations measures signed into law a year ago. in his remarks, congressman frank said he was concerned that house republicans were undermining the law by cutting the budgets of regulators implementing it. his remarks and the q and a with reports are about an hour. >> thank you. and that reference to my colleague, mr. bachmann, remind you that those of you who cover the financial services committee might ask your editors for dual pay. because you will be covering the republican presidential. because i think for the first

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)